On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:07:31AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:35PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:27:24AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess it would be good to have a:
> > > >
> > > > enum usb_gadget_state usb_gadget_get_state(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > > > {
> > > > return gadget->state;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > right ?? At least dwc3 can make use of it.
> > >
> > > This seems like unnecessary embellishment. What's wrong with typing
> > >
> > > gadget->state
> > >
> > > instead of
> > >
> > > usb_gadget_get_state(gadget)
> > >
> > > ? Do you have some reason to think the "state" field will need further
> > > encapsulation in the future?
> >
> > not really, just that a setter() usually follows up a getter(). But...
> > meh... no strong feelings
>
> I would argue that for something as simple as ->state, you don't even
> need a "setter()" function. This is C, not Java :)
hehe, the setter also does a sysfs notify ;-)
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
